Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.430, 0.174 | 0.407 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.030 | 0.134 | -0.232, 0.293 | 0.822 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.177 | 0.193 | -0.201, 0.555 | 0.359 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.380 | -0.825, 0.665 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.184 | 0.245 | -0.664, 0.297 | 0.454 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.03 | 0.354 | 0.332, 1.72 | 0.004 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.504 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.712 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.637 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.761 | 0.398 | -0.020, 1.54 | 0.058 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.04 | 0.577 | -0.092, 2.17 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.184 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.260 | -0.477, 0.541 | 0.902 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.017 | 0.174 | -0.323, 0.358 | 0.920 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.324 | 0.251 | -0.169, 0.816 | 0.199 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.290 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.410 | -0.459, 1.15 | 0.402 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.436 | 0.255 | -0.065, 0.936 | 0.089 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.442 | 0.369 | -0.282, 1.17 | 0.233 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.546, 0.914 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.391 | 0.208 | -0.017, 0.799 | 0.062 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.289 | 0.301 | -0.302, 0.879 | 0.339 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.214 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.303 | -0.986, 0.202 | 0.197 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.056 | 0.210 | -0.355, 0.467 | 0.790 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.836 | 0.303 | 0.243, 1.43 | 0.006 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.882 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.247 | -3.73, 1.16 | 0.303 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.27 | 0.635 | -2.51, -0.021 | 0.048 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.266 | 0.920 | -2.07, 1.54 | 0.773 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.409 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.578 | -1.14, 1.13 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.445 | 0.341 | -0.223, 1.11 | 0.193 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.165 | 0.493 | -0.801, 1.13 | 0.738 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.515 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.729 | -0.589, 2.27 | 0.250 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.489 | 0.413 | -0.321, 1.30 | 0.238 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.233 | 0.598 | -0.940, 1.41 | 0.698 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.641 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.907 | -0.410, 3.15 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.18 | 0.490 | 0.218, 2.14 | 0.017 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.124 | 0.709 | -1.27, 1.51 | 0.861 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.336 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.475 | -0.579, 1.28 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.448 | 0.258 | -0.058, 0.955 | 0.084 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.069 | 0.374 | -0.802, 0.664 | 0.855 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.544 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.770 | -1.51, 1.51 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.736 | 0.423 | -0.093, 1.56 | 0.083 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.400 | 0.612 | -0.799, 1.60 | 0.514 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.631 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.892 | -1.43, 2.07 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.19 | 0.470 | 0.269, 2.11 | 0.012 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.279 | 0.680 | -1.61, 1.05 | 0.682 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.388 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.549 | -0.317, 1.84 | 0.167 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.714 | 0.343 | 0.042, 1.39 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.474 | 0.496 | -0.497, 1.45 | 0.340 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.353 | 0.052, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.045 | 0.204 | -0.445, 0.355 | 0.825 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.408 | 0.295 | -0.171, 0.986 | 0.168 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.286 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.404 | -0.400, 1.18 | 0.333 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.350 | 0.229 | -0.099, 0.798 | 0.128 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.312 | 0.331 | -0.336, 0.961 | 0.347 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.294 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.416 | -0.120, 1.51 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.339 | 0.218 | -0.089, 0.767 | 0.122 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.174 | 0.316 | -0.446, 0.793 | 0.583 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.540 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.764 | -0.409, 2.59 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.683 | 0.382 | -0.065, 1.43 | 0.075 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.499 | 0.553 | -0.585, 1.58 | 0.368 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.819 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.158 | -3.49, 1.05 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.787 | 0.610 | -1.98, 0.408 | 0.198 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.36 | 0.883 | -3.08, 0.375 | 0.126 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.445 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.630 | -0.226, 2.24 | 0.111 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.300 | 0.336 | -0.358, 0.958 | 0.372 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.648 | 0.486 | -0.304, 1.60 | 0.184 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.361 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.511 | 0.007, 2.01 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.576 | 0.295 | -0.001, 1.15 | 0.052 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.268 | 0.426 | -0.567, 1.10 | 0.530 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.768 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.086 | -0.113, 4.14 | 0.064 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.874 | 0.572 | -0.247, 1.99 | 0.128 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.924 | 0.828 | -0.698, 2.55 | 0.266 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.143 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.202 | -0.467, 0.323 | 0.721 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.147 | 0.158 | -0.457, 0.164 | 0.355 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.183 | 0.229 | -0.265, 0.631 | 0.425 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.309 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.437 | -0.136, 1.58 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.682 | 0.306 | 0.082, 1.28 | 0.027 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.705 | 0.442 | -1.57, 0.162 | 0.113 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.378 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.534 | -0.583, 1.51 | 0.386 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.614 | 0.328 | -0.029, 1.26 | 0.063 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.248 | 0.475 | -0.682, 1.18 | 0.602 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.617 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.873 | -0.527, 2.90 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.30 | 0.549 | 0.218, 2.37 | 0.019 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.442 | 0.794 | -2.00, 1.12 | 0.579 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.404 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.571 | -0.591, 1.65 | 0.356 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.804 | 0.327 | 0.163, 1.45 | 0.015 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.138 | 0.473 | -0.789, 1.07 | 0.770 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.223 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.316 | -0.627, 0.611 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.205 | 0.233 | -0.252, 0.662 | 0.380 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.493 | 0.336 | -0.166, 1.15 | 0.144 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.276 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.390 | -0.853, 0.677 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.415 | 0.271 | -0.946, 0.115 | 0.127 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.444 | 0.391 | -1.21, 0.322 | 0.257 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.324 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.459 | -0.675, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.307 | 0.249 | -0.794, 0.181 | 0.219 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.714 | 0.360 | -1.42, -0.008 | 0.049 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.470 | -1.00, 0.842 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.474 | 0.256 | -0.975, 0.027 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.369 | 0.370 | -1.09, 0.356 | 0.319 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.473 | -0.519, 1.34 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.279 | 0.254 | -0.778, 0.219 | 0.273 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.672 | 0.368 | -1.39, 0.050 | 0.069 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.935 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.322 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.676 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.08 | 0.643 | -2.34, 0.183 | 0.096 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.69 | 0.931 | -3.51, 0.135 | 0.071 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(442) = 29.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(442) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(442) = 0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.56], t(442) = 0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(442) = 66.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(442) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30], t(442) = -0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.33, 1.72], t(442) = 2.90, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.11, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(442) = 58.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(442) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.54], t(442) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-3.58e-03, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.17], t(442) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(442) = 63.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(442) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.36], t(442) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 8.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.82], t(442) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(442) = 59.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(442) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.94], t(442) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.17], t(442) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(442) = 49.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(442) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80], t(442) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-5.67e-03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.88], t(442) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(442) = 46.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(442) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47], t(442) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.24, 1.43], t(442) = 2.76, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.10, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(442) = 35.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.16], t(442) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.51, -0.02], t(442) = -1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -2.17e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-2.07, 1.54], t(442) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(442) = 53.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(442) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.11], t(442) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.13], t(442) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(442) = 47.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(442) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.30], t(442) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.41], t(442) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(442) = 30.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(442) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.22, 2.14], t(442) = 2.40, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.51], t(442) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(442) = 31.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(442) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.95], t(442) = 1.74, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.66], t(442) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(442) = 27.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.90e-14, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(442) = -2.46e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -8.63e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.56], t(442) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.60], t(442) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(442) = 34.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(442) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.27, 2.11], t(442) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.05], t(442) = -0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(442) = 41.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(442) = 1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.04, 1.39], t(442) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [9.60e-03, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.45], t(442) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(442) = 52.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(442) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.35], t(442) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.99], t(442) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(442) = 58.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(442) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.80], t(442) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.96], t(442) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(442) = 42.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(442) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.77], t(442) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.79], t(442) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(442) = 54.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.59], t(442) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.43], t(442) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.58], t(442) = 0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(442) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(442) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.98, 0.41], t(442) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.36, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.37], t(442) = -1.54, p = 0.125; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(442) = 31.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.24], t(442) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.96], t(442) = 0.89, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.60], t(442) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(442) = 42.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [6.60e-03, 2.01], t(442) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [1.62e-03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-9.96e-04, 1.15], t(442) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.45e-04, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.10], t(442) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.67], t(442) = 37.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(442) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.99], t(442) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.55], t(442) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(442) = 89.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(442) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.16], t(442) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.63], t(442) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(442) = 46.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(442) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [0.08, 1.28], t(442) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.16], t(442) = -1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(442) = 34.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(442) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.26], t(442) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-6.80e-03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.18], t(442) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(442) = 44.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(442) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.22, 2.37], t(442) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.03, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.12], t(442) = -0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(442) = 46.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(442) = 0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.16, 1.45], t(442) = 2.46, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.04, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.07], t(442) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(442) = 64.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(442) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66], t(442) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.15], t(442) = 1.47, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(442) = 42.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(442) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.12], t(442) = -1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.32], t(442) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(442) = 32.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.12], t(442) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.18], t(442) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.42, -8.15e-03], t(442) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.39, -2.25e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(442) = 30.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(442) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.03], t(442) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 7.20e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.36], t(442) = -1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(442) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(442) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.22], t(442) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.05], t(442) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(442) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(442) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.34, 0.18], t(442) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.69, 95% CI [-3.51, 0.14], t(442) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,429.045 | 1,441.359 | -711.523 | 1,423.045 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,432.575 | 1,457.204 | -710.288 | 1,420.575 | 2.470 | 3 | 0.481 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,165.749 | 2,178.063 | -1,079.874 | 2,159.749 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,159.843 | 2,184.472 | -1,073.922 | 2,147.843 | 11.905 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,691.264 | 2,703.579 | -1,342.632 | 2,685.264 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,674.824 | 2,699.453 | -1,331.412 | 2,662.824 | 22.440 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,827.950 | 1,840.265 | -910.975 | 1,821.950 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,829.946 | 1,854.575 | -908.973 | 1,817.946 | 4.004 | 3 | 0.261 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,224.838 | 2,237.152 | -1,109.419 | 2,218.838 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,215.732 | 2,240.361 | -1,101.866 | 2,203.732 | 15.106 | 3 | 0.002 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,100.919 | 2,113.233 | -1,047.459 | 2,094.919 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,093.278 | 2,117.906 | -1,040.639 | 2,081.278 | 13.641 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,988.462 | 2,000.777 | -991.231 | 1,982.462 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,978.071 | 2,002.700 | -983.036 | 1,966.071 | 16.391 | 3 | 0.001 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,148.560 | 3,160.875 | -1,571.280 | 3,142.560 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,144.119 | 3,168.748 | -1,566.059 | 3,132.119 | 10.441 | 3 | 0.015 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,504.691 | 2,517.006 | -1,249.346 | 2,498.691 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,506.040 | 2,530.669 | -1,247.020 | 2,494.040 | 4.651 | 3 | 0.199 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,700.282 | 2,712.597 | -1,347.141 | 2,694.282 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,700.332 | 2,724.961 | -1,344.166 | 2,688.332 | 5.950 | 3 | 0.114 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,887.828 | 2,900.142 | -1,440.914 | 2,881.828 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,879.351 | 2,903.979 | -1,433.675 | 2,867.351 | 14.477 | 3 | 0.002 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,301.654 | 2,313.968 | -1,147.827 | 2,295.654 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,302.235 | 2,326.864 | -1,145.117 | 2,290.235 | 5.419 | 3 | 0.144 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,741.503 | 2,753.818 | -1,367.752 | 2,735.503 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,738.040 | 2,762.669 | -1,363.020 | 2,726.040 | 9.464 | 3 | 0.024 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,859.424 | 2,871.738 | -1,426.712 | 2,853.424 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,855.733 | 2,880.362 | -1,421.866 | 2,843.733 | 9.691 | 3 | 0.021 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,490.822 | 2,503.136 | -1,242.411 | 2,484.822 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,478.560 | 2,503.189 | -1,233.280 | 2,466.560 | 18.262 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,061.569 | 2,073.884 | -1,027.785 | 2,055.569 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,057.239 | 2,081.868 | -1,022.620 | 2,045.239 | 10.330 | 3 | 0.016 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,176.267 | 2,188.581 | -1,085.133 | 2,170.267 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,170.700 | 2,195.329 | -1,079.350 | 2,158.700 | 11.567 | 3 | 0.009 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,176.024 | 2,188.339 | -1,085.012 | 2,170.024 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,171.051 | 2,195.680 | -1,079.525 | 2,159.051 | 10.974 | 3 | 0.012 |
els | null | 3 | 2,707.054 | 2,719.369 | -1,350.527 | 2,701.054 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,698.398 | 2,723.027 | -1,343.199 | 2,686.398 | 14.656 | 3 | 0.002 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,098.624 | 3,110.938 | -1,546.312 | 3,092.624 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,089.489 | 3,114.118 | -1,538.745 | 3,077.489 | 15.134 | 3 | 0.002 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,554.195 | 2,566.509 | -1,274.097 | 2,548.195 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,547.875 | 2,572.504 | -1,267.938 | 2,535.875 | 12.319 | 3 | 0.006 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,397.852 | 2,410.167 | -1,195.926 | 2,391.852 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,387.554 | 2,412.183 | -1,187.777 | 2,375.554 | 16.298 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 3,042.234 | 3,054.549 | -1,518.117 | 3,036.234 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 3,031.984 | 3,056.613 | -1,509.992 | 3,019.984 | 16.250 | 3 | 0.001 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,644.298 | 1,656.612 | -819.149 | 1,638.298 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,649.384 | 1,674.013 | -818.692 | 1,637.384 | 0.914 | 3 | 0.822 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,309.815 | 2,322.130 | -1,151.908 | 2,303.815 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,309.744 | 2,334.372 | -1,148.872 | 2,297.744 | 6.072 | 3 | 0.108 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,453.344 | 2,465.658 | -1,223.672 | 2,447.344 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,448.518 | 2,473.147 | -1,218.259 | 2,436.518 | 10.826 | 3 | 0.013 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,899.739 | 2,912.053 | -1,446.869 | 2,893.739 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,896.633 | 2,921.262 | -1,442.316 | 2,884.633 | 9.106 | 3 | 0.028 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,493.439 | 2,505.753 | -1,243.720 | 2,487.439 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,485.043 | 2,509.672 | -1,236.522 | 2,473.043 | 14.396 | 3 | 0.002 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 2,037.367 | 2,049.682 | -1,015.684 | 2,031.367 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 2,034.022 | 2,058.651 | -1,011.011 | 2,022.022 | 9.345 | 3 | 0.025 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,211.746 | 2,224.060 | -1,102.873 | 2,205.746 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,205.799 | 2,230.428 | -1,096.900 | 2,193.799 | 11.946 | 3 | 0.008 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,280.093 | 2,292.407 | -1,137.046 | 2,274.093 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,269.547 | 2,294.176 | -1,128.773 | 2,257.547 | 16.546 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,300.708 | 2,313.022 | -1,147.354 | 2,294.708 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,293.314 | 2,317.943 | -1,140.657 | 2,281.314 | 13.394 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,302.479 | 2,314.793 | -1,148.239 | 2,296.479 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,294.600 | 2,319.229 | -1,141.300 | 2,282.600 | 13.879 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,192.814 | 3,205.128 | -1,593.407 | 3,186.814 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,179.686 | 3,204.315 | -1,583.843 | 3,167.686 | 19.128 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.407 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 104 | 3.23 ± 1.21 | -0.030 | 94 | 3.28 ± 1.20 | -0.209 | 0.774 | -0.049 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.01 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.01 | 0.834 | 0.045 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 104 | 17.70 ± 2.90 | 0.102 | 94 | 18.64 ± 2.85 | -0.470 | 0.021 | -0.527 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.63 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.63 | 0.637 | -0.116 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 104 | 30.45 ± 5.37 | -0.262 | 94 | 31.82 ± 5.24 | -0.619 | 0.070 | -0.473 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.05 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.05 | 0.902 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 104 | 11.64 ± 1.99 | -0.014 | 94 | 12.00 ± 1.96 | -0.268 | 0.206 | -0.279 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.24 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.24 | 0.402 | -0.184 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 104 | 17.62 ± 3.12 | -0.233 | 94 | 18.41 ± 3.06 | -0.470 | 0.074 | -0.421 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.121 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 104 | 13.54 ± 2.81 | -0.258 | 94 | 14.01 ± 2.74 | -0.448 | 0.232 | -0.311 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.40 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.40 | 0.197 | 0.255 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 104 | 10.01 ± 2.33 | -0.036 | 94 | 10.45 ± 2.29 | -0.580 | 0.177 | -0.289 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.86 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.86 | 0.303 | 0.279 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 104 | 30.23 ± 9.34 | 0.274 | 94 | 28.68 ± 9.09 | 0.331 | 0.237 | 0.336 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 104 | 22.51 ± 4.38 | -0.179 | 94 | 22.67 ± 4.28 | -0.245 | 0.798 | -0.063 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.76 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.76 | 0.250 | -0.278 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 104 | 24.99 ± 5.50 | -0.162 | 94 | 26.07 ± 5.37 | -0.239 | 0.166 | -0.356 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.17 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.17 | 0.133 | -0.383 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 104 | 20.84 ± 6.82 | -0.330 | 94 | 22.33 ± 6.65 | -0.365 | 0.120 | -0.418 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.76 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.76 | 0.459 | -0.187 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 104 | 11.10 ± 3.57 | -0.238 | 94 | 11.38 ± 3.49 | -0.202 | 0.573 | -0.151 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.09 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.09 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 104 | 15.86 ± 5.80 | -0.239 | 94 | 16.26 ± 5.65 | -0.369 | 0.624 | -0.130 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.06 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.06 | 0.720 | -0.094 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 104 | 22.74 ± 6.70 | -0.348 | 94 | 22.78 ± 6.53 | -0.266 | 0.965 | -0.012 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.34 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.34 | 0.167 | -0.303 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 104 | 16.89 ± 4.18 | -0.285 | 94 | 18.12 ± 4.10 | -0.474 | 0.037 | -0.492 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.79 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.79 | 0.036 | -0.500 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 104 | 13.12 ± 2.67 | 0.030 | 94 | 14.27 ± 2.61 | -0.244 | 0.002 | -0.774 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.333 | -0.235 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 104 | 17.11 ± 3.05 | -0.210 | 94 | 17.81 ± 2.98 | -0.397 | 0.101 | -0.422 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.29 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.29 | 0.095 | -0.438 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 104 | 12.75 ± 3.12 | -0.213 | 94 | 13.62 ± 3.04 | -0.322 | 0.048 | -0.547 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.04 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.04 | 0.155 | -0.391 | ||
els | 2nd | 104 | 29.85 ± 5.72 | -0.246 | 94 | 31.44 ± 5.56 | -0.425 | 0.048 | -0.571 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.16 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.16 | 0.295 | 0.274 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 104 | 27.09 ± 8.70 | 0.177 | 94 | 24.52 ± 8.47 | 0.482 | 0.036 | 0.579 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 4.98 | 125 | 14.85 ± 4.98 | 0.111 | -0.412 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 104 | 14.14 ± 4.73 | -0.123 | 94 | 15.80 ± 4.61 | -0.388 | 0.013 | -0.677 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.04 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.04 | 0.049 | -0.469 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 104 | 15.90 ± 3.86 | -0.268 | 94 | 17.18 ± 3.77 | -0.393 | 0.019 | -0.594 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.59 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.59 | 0.064 | -0.484 | ||
shs | 2nd | 104 | 30.04 ± 8.16 | -0.210 | 94 | 32.98 ± 7.94 | -0.432 | 0.011 | -0.706 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.59 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.59 | 0.721 | 0.062 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 104 | 12.65 ± 1.57 | 0.126 | 94 | 12.76 ± 1.55 | -0.031 | 0.618 | -0.095 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.45 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.45 | 0.100 | -0.320 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 104 | 15.04 ± 3.36 | -0.303 | 94 | 15.06 ± 3.31 | 0.010 | 0.974 | -0.007 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.22 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.22 | 0.386 | -0.193 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 104 | 13.77 ± 4.06 | -0.256 | 94 | 14.48 ± 3.98 | -0.359 | 0.214 | -0.297 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.90 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.90 | 0.176 | -0.295 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 104 | 28.81 ± 6.65 | -0.322 | 94 | 29.55 ± 6.52 | -0.212 | 0.429 | -0.185 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.52 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.52 | 0.356 | -0.221 | ||
empower | 2nd | 104 | 19.65 ± 4.31 | -0.337 | 94 | 20.32 ± 4.22 | -0.395 | 0.273 | -0.279 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.50 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.50 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 104 | 14.57 ± 2.44 | -0.120 | 94 | 15.05 ± 2.41 | -0.407 | 0.160 | -0.283 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.09 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.09 | 0.822 | 0.044 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 104 | 11.38 ± 3.00 | 0.209 | 94 | 10.84 ± 2.95 | 0.433 | 0.209 | 0.268 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.62 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.62 | 0.626 | -0.124 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 104 | 10.09 ± 3.45 | 0.169 | 94 | 9.60 ± 3.36 | 0.563 | 0.313 | 0.270 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.043 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 104 | 9.70 ± 3.54 | 0.254 | 94 | 9.25 ± 3.45 | 0.453 | 0.367 | 0.241 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.389 | -0.220 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 104 | 8.43 ± 3.56 | 0.151 | 94 | 8.17 ± 3.47 | 0.513 | 0.598 | 0.142 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.45 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.45 | 0.676 | -0.118 | ||
sss | 2nd | 104 | 28.21 ± 9.87 | 0.230 | 94 | 27.07 ± 9.59 | 0.592 | 0.412 | 0.243 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(404.72) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(430.56) = 0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.39)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(329.18) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(380.02) = 2.31, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.75)
ras_confidence
1st
t(306.80) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)
2st
t(354.30) = 1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.86)
ras_willingness
1st
t(336.49) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)
2st
t(387.07) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.91)
ras_goal
1st
t(322.97) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)
2st
t(373.54) = 1.79, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.65)
ras_reliance
1st
t(306.76) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(354.24) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.25)
ras_domination
1st
t(343.32) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)
2st
t(393.13) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.09)
symptom
1st
t(295.74) = -1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.17)
2st
t(338.93) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-4.13 to 1.02)
slof_work
1st
t(314.28) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)
2st
t(363.65) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.37)
slof_relationship
1st
t(308.69) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(356.74) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.59)
satisfaction
1st
t(302.34) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)
2st
t(348.33) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.39 to 3.38)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(303.23) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)
2st
t(349.55) = 0.56, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.27)
mhc_social
1st
t(304.42) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(351.16) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.00)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(299.28) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.08)
2st
t(344.06) = 0.04, p = 0.965, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.89)
resilisnce
1st
t(323.34) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(373.94) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.39)
social_provision
1st
t(311.27) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(359.98) = 3.07, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.89)
els_value_living
1st
t(308.41) = 0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(356.37) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.55)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(298.92) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
2st
t(343.56) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.73)
els
1st
t(293.81) = 1.42, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.59)
2st
t(336.05) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.16)
social_connect
1st
t(299.31) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)
2st
t(344.11) = -2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.97 to -0.17)
shs_agency
1st
t(300.78) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)
2st
t(346.18) = 2.49, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.96)
shs_pathway
1st
t(311.00) = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)
2st
t(359.65) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.34)
shs
1st
t(299.37) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)
2st
t(344.19) = 2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.69 to 5.19)
esteem
1st
t(375.14) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)
2st
t(415.78) = 0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.55)
mlq_search
1st
t(346.26) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(395.59) = 0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.95)
mlq_presence
1st
t(320.76) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)
2st
t(371.11) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.84)
mlq
1st
t(324.80) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(375.50) = 0.79, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.58)
empower
1st
t(310.01) = 0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)
2st
t(358.42) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.86)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(358.47) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(404.96) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.16)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(343.96) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)
2st
t(393.66) = -1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.30)
sss_affective
1st
t(302.87) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(349.06) = -1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.46)
sss_behavior
1st
t(303.11) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(349.39) = -0.90, p = 0.367, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.53)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(301.76) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(347.54) = -0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.72)
sss
1st
t(291.08) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(331.88) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.58)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(228.37) = 1.49, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.48)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(213.57) = 3.29, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 1.35)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(209.11) = 4.31, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.98 to 2.62)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(214.99) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.70)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(212.35) = 3.29, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.40)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(209.11) = 3.12, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.11)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(216.31) = 4.08, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.32)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(206.83) = -2.30, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.84 to -0.22)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(210.63) = 1.71, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.31)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(209.50) = 1.67, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.57)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(208.20) = 2.54, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.29 to 2.31)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(208.38) = 1.40, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.91)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(208.63) = 2.57, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.01)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(207.57) = 1.85, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.88)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(212.43) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.48 to 1.89)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(210.02) = 1.70, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.78)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(209.44) = 2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.13)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(207.49) = 2.24, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.96)
els
1st vs 2st
t(206.42) = 2.95, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.97)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(207.57) = -3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.40 to -0.88)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(207.88) = 2.70, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.64)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(209.97) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.45)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(207.59) = 3.00, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.62 to 2.98)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(222.41) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.36)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(216.87) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.61)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(211.92) = 2.51, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.54)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(212.71) = 1.49, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.98)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(209.77) = 2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.62)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(219.21) = 2.87, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.18)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(216.43) = -3.04, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.30)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(208.31) = -3.92, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.51)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(208.36) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.32)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(208.08) = -3.57, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.48 to -0.43)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(205.85) = -4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.09 to -1.44)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(218.67) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(208.04) = -0.75, p = 0.908, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.30)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(204.95) = 1.91, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.55)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(209.04) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.36)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(207.19) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.94)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(204.94) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.80)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(209.96) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.47)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(203.38) = -1.99, p = 0.095, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.52 to -0.01)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(206.00) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.12)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(205.22) = 1.18, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.30)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(204.32) = 2.40, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(204.45) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.96)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(204.62) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.57)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(203.89) = 2.53, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.12)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(207.25) = 2.08, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.39)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(205.58) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.36)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(205.18) = 1.53, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(203.83) = 1.55, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.77)
els
1st vs 2st
t(203.10) = 1.79, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.44)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(203.89) = -1.29, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.42)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(204.10) = 0.89, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.96)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(205.54) = 1.96, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(203.90) = 1.53, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.00)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(214.31) = -0.93, p = 0.711, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.17)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(210.36) = 2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.29)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(206.89) = 1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.26)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(207.45) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.38)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(205.40) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.45)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(212.01) = 0.88, p = 0.760, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.66)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(210.05) = -1.53, p = 0.253, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.12)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(204.40) = -1.23, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.18)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(204.43) = -1.85, p = 0.130, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.03)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(204.24) = -1.10, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.22)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(202.70) = -1.67, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.34 to 0.19)